Merged why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.

[dirtywick]

Well, yeah. Because they're not reliable witnesses. They're people who have an axe to grind with Trump, and they know that saying Trump and Epstein were close friends makes Trump look bad. Why would you take their word for it? That's foolish.

I don't think they were close friends because I don't see signs of close friendship. The photos aren't evidence of that, especially not for people who socialized a lot in the same circles. The photos are evidence that they were friendly, but that's not in dispute. If they were really close friends, why wasn't there more than that?

idk man you do you

 

[Max_mang]

Ok, how about the COO of Trump's casino thinking Trump and Epstein were best friends, Trump and Epstein's victim thinking they were "really, really good friends", the hand-drawn naked lady birthday card, the many, many, oh so many photos of them enjoying each other's company over some 15 years....

The Great Zaganza said:
Trump's name shows up in the emails literally more than any other name.
dirtywick said:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20250227/117951/HHRG-119-JU08-20250227-SD006-U6.pdfgood place to start, plenty more to follow up on if you care to find on your own.

Ziggurat, if there were this much evidence (or even half as much) of Epstein being friends with Hillary, Bernie, Kamala, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg or some other Dem, would you defend against it the same way? I'm not asking you to answer on this forum, just as a thought experiment for yourself.

 

[dirtywick]

That's not entirely true, my opinion of Trump could get better or worse. Trump doesn't do much to make me think he's a good person, all things considered, but you never know. He could be visited by 3 ghosts.

it certainly could get better or worse. for example, it'll change depending on the extent of his involvement with epstein.

in any case trump is a terrible person, really shouldn't be any disagreement on that point. everyone should want to see him go down for any number of his various past or even current crimes. i think that people don't is disturbing. i mean, does anyone really think it's a better look to be acting like you don't care that the president was involved, in any unknown capacity, with a pedophile sex trafficker? that sounds like a pretty serious ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem to me. and it's looking like that's what it is, to what extent is now the question.

but yeah, it's like, the people that hate trump, tds am i rite?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, if there were this much evidence (or even half as much) of Epstein being friends with Hillary, Bernie, Kamala, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg or some other Dem,

Curiously absent from your list is Bill.

 

[Max_mang]

Ok, how about the COO of Trump's casino thinking Trump and Epstein were best friends, Trump and Epstein's victim thinking they were "really, really good friends", the hand-drawn naked lady birthday card, the many, many, oh so many photos of them enjoying each other's company over some 15 years....

The Great Zaganza said:
Trump's name shows up in the emails literally more than any other name.
dirtywick said:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20250227/117951/HHRG-119-JU08-20250227-SD006-U6.pdfgood place to start, plenty more to follow up on if you care to find on your own.

You could assume Bill Clinton in the "some other Dem" part, but here's a revised one:

Ziggurat, if there were this much evidence (or even half as much) of Epstein being friends with Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bernie, Kamala, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg or some other Dem, would you defend against it the same way? I'm not asking you to answer on this forum, just as a thought experiment for yourself.

 

[dirtywick]

Curiously absent from your list is Bill.

oh he’s in there. called him bubba as i understand it

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Saying that Trump is not as bad as Epstein would only work if Trump had done what he could to expose Epstein and his fellow rapists instead of help covering things up, and continuing to do so.

No matter how charitable you what to be, Trump is a coconspirator of a convicted sex trafficker.

 

[plague311]

Curiously absent from your list is Bill.

I'll say it in case someone else doesn't want to...

If there is any Dem, past or present, that shows up in the Epstein files then I hope they rot in prison and burn in hell for the rest of existence. I don't care who they are or what they did as a politician. ◊◊◊◊ them. ◊◊◊◊ them in their stupid asses. If they molested kids then let me personally be the one to lock the prison door.

That's what it's like to not be in a cult, Zigg. I don't put my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ political party, or some politician that doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about me, above the safety and protection of children. Ever.

 

[Ziggurat]

If there is any Dem, past or present, that shows up in the Epstein files then I hope they rot in prison and burn in hell for the rest of existence.

Showing up in the Epstein files doesn't indicate a person has done anything wrong. Showing up in the Epstein files means basically nothing. A ◊◊◊◊ ton of people show up in the Epstein files, including Trump and the Clintons. What's of primary relevance is if anything in the files implicates them in criminal behavior.

As of now, I am not aware that the Clintons or Trump are implicated in any criminal behavior. In fact, in the case of Trump, I'm confident that the files do NOT implicate him in any criminal behavior, because I think such files would have been used against Trump during the Biden presidency had they existed.

Of secondary importance is whether someone is implicated in sleazy but non-criminal behavior. An example of this would be Larry Summers, who was consulting Epstein for dating advice at a time when Summers knew full well Epstein's criminal history. The release of Epstein's emails exposed those exchanges. And that's gross, but not criminal. The redacted email that the Dems released tried to implicate Trump in such behavior, but that fell apart when we found out what was redacted. It is possible that some other files may show something more substantive and negative (but still non-criminal) about Trump, but nothing has yet been released.

 

[dirtywick]

As of now, I am not aware that the Clintons or Trump are implicated in any criminal behavior. In fact, in the case of Trump, I'm confident that the files do NOT implicate him in any criminal behavior, because I think such files would have been used against Trump during the Biden presidency had they existed.

nobody in the biden admin and biden himself didn’t say a word about an insurrection on live tv and nuclear secrets he kept behind his toilet and refused to return and they let him slow walk it all to freedom, including skipping sentencing him for the dozens of felonies he was found guilty of. additionally as i understand it, the biden admin was unable to release the files due to the ongoing trial of maxwell, convicted in 2021 and her appeal wasn’t denied until 2025. even if they were inclined to do so.

Key Epstein Reporter Scorches Claim Democrats Could’ve Released Epstein Files

Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie Brown scorched efforts by Republicans to claim that the Democrats could have already released the Epstein files by pointing out a key fact about the timeline.

www.yahoo.com

not really sure why you’re so confident on this

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Why do people bite at fringe resets? Does anyone really think Ziggurat is unaware of the basic facts of the matter, or is incapable of making simple logical inferences?

 

[dirtywick]

Why do people bite at fringe resets? Does anyone really think Ziggurat is unaware of the basic facts of the matter, or is incapable of making simple logical inferences?

not sure what he gets out of it.

you’re right of course. kind of typical of these kinds of discussions though to have to rehash things over and over, particularly for people who absolutely refuse to learn anything about the topic without having it spoon fed to them. if i have the patience for it, i add relevant info for other readers in case they are interested though. good deed of the day.

 

[wareyin]

Why do people bite at fringe resets? Does anyone really think Ziggurat is unaware of the basic facts of the matter, or is incapable of making simple logical inferences?

It used to be that only the trolls and the particularly stupid right wingers thought they could win the debate by feigning ignorance on well known facts, or basic terminology. Sort of 'ha, ha, I got you to react by explaining it to me, so I won!'

Now they all do it.

 

[Ziggurat]

nobody in the biden admin and biden himself didn’t say a word about an insurrection on live tv and nuclear secrets he kept behind his toilet and refused to return and they let him slow walk it all to freedom, including skipping sentencing him for the dozens of felonies he was found guilty of.

Bwahahahahaha! The Biden administration and the Democrats went after Trump on ALL of these things. You aren't contradicting me, you're proving me right.

additionally as i understand it, the biden admin was unable to release the files due to the ongoing trial of maxwell, convicted in 2021 and her appeal wasn’t denied until 2025. even if they were inclined to do so.

I never said anything about releasing the files. I said they would use the files against Trump. They did not. Ergo, I conclude with high confidence that no such files implicating Trump in criminal behavior exist.

As time goes on, I'm suspecting the same thing about Bill too.

 

[plague311]

Showing up in the Epstein files doesn't indicate a person has done anything wrong. Showing up in the Epstein files means basically nothing. A ◊◊◊◊ ton of people show up in the Epstein files, including Trump and the Clintons. What's of primary relevance is if anything in the files implicates them in criminal behavior.

Aww, you're so adorable when you're disingenuous. I know you HAVE to be in order to maintain your persona here, but it was pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clear what I was saying. I do adore that you went on to explain the obvious underlying point I was making, that by me saying if someone "showed up" in the files that I was referring to them being involved in the goings on at Epstein's island.

If the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pilots name that got hired to fly the God damned plane to Epstein's island showed up in the report, I wouldn't hate on him. It was his job, he probably didn't have a clue as to what went on there.

You knew that though. Everyone knows you knew it, but this is the new Zigg.

As of now, I am not aware that the Clintons or Trump are implicated in any criminal behavior. In fact, in the case of Trump, I'm confident that the files do NOT implicate him in any criminal behavior, because I think such files would have been used against Trump during the Biden presidency had they existed.

You think this because you're projecting, because that's who you and Trump are, as people. It blows your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mind that a POTUS wouldn't resort to leaking, or using information they shouldn't because it's part of an ongoing investigation, just to win an election. The constant feeding of right-wing bull ◊◊◊◊, the ingestion of Trump's constant lies, and blatant knowledge that your political party is the dirtiest, most underhanded liars that we've ever seen in government causes you to assume that the Dems are the same. That they'd hold on to power no matter if it involved breaking policy or laws to do it. You need to convince yourself that's true.

Of secondary importance is whether someone is implicated in sleazy but non-criminal behavior.

To you, yes.

An example of this would be Larry Summers, who was consulting Epstein for dating advice at a time when Summers knew full well Epstein's criminal history. The release of Epstein's emails exposed those exchanges. And that's gross, but not criminal.

It could be criminal. I have the upmost confidence that Pamela Bondi's investigation will bring...pffhahahahaha I couldn't finish it. I tried, I really did, but I couldn't finish it. We all know they just started that "investigation" to use as an excuse to not release the files because of an "ongoing investigation".

The redacted email that the Dems released tried to implicate Trump in such behavior, but that fell apart when we found out what was redacted. It is possible that some other files may show something more substantive and negative (but still non-criminal) about Trump, but nothing has yet been released.

No idea what you're talking about here with the Dems trying to implicate Trump. Sounds like Trump is mentioned sporadically through the Epstein files as is, without the Dems doing a damn thing.

That being said, I'm not going to make any bold predictions until the rest of the files come out. Given that the House passed the release with only 1 dissent and the Senate unanimously voted to send it to Trump's desk leads me to believe that Trump can't stop this no matter what. I did enjoy reading Johnson's pouting session about how he felt the Senate should have amended the bill though. I laughed, and laughed.

Anyway, even Trump vetoes it will be overridden. We're going to see the files no matter what.

 

[dirtywick]

Bwahahahahaha! The Biden administration and the Democrats went after Trump on ALL of these things. You aren't contradicting me, you're proving me right.

nope

edit

to elaborate imo biden and his admin was super hands off at letting garland botch it all so idk what you’re talking about

I never said anything about releasing the files. I said they would use the files against Trump. They did not. Ergo, I conclude with high confidence that no such files implicating Trump in criminal behavior exist.

As time goes on, I'm suspecting the same thing about Bill too.

lol ok

 

[wareyin]

We're now at the stage where dear leader merely facing the possibility of consequences for blatantly committing crimes live on television is wrong. Because as the cult knows, dear leader cannot have done anything wrong, so being charged for his blatant criminal behavior is evidence that Biden was corrupt, not that the infallible dear leader was in the wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

You think this because you're projecting, because that's who you and Trump are, as people. It blows your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mind that a POTUS wouldn't resort to leaking, or using information they shouldn't because it's part of an ongoing investigation, just to win an election.

The FBI already leaked ◊◊◊◊ about Trump they were not legally permitted to leak. This isn't hypothetical, it's known fact.

Nor is that the only way they could use such information. Seriously, suppose for a second that there was information that implicated Trump in criminal behavior. What should they do with that information during the Biden presidency? Sit on it until Maxwell's appeals ran out? No! Obviously not. If they had information that implicated Trump in criminal behavior, they should have opened up a criminal investigation on Trump, right? That would be legal and proper, would it not?

And yet, they did not do so. Why not? Because they wanted to let a child predator AND a political opponent skate? Or because there was nothing there to go after? Which of those explanations is actually better for the Biden administration?

Not only could you not imagine Trump's opponents doing what they already did, you couldn't even imagine them doing the right thing. And you accuse me of projecting?

No idea what you're talking about here with the Dems trying to implicate Trump.

They published an email where Epstein claimed that Trump spent several hours alone with one of Epstein's victims. The Dems redacted the name of the victim (they had the unredacted version), so many at first took this to suggest some new revelation. But the victim was Virginia Guiffre. It's long been known that she had contact with Trump, but she never accused Trump of anything. So without that redaction, the email is a giant nothingburger. The redaction was an attempt to make it seem significant when it wasn't.

 

[wareyin]

The FBI already leaked ◊◊◊◊ about Trump they were not legally permitted to leak. This isn't hypothetical, it's known fact.

I'm sure you have evidence for this "known fact", right? Not just an accusation by a Trump lackey?

 

[wareyin]

Seriously, suppose for a second that there was information that implicated Trump in criminal behavior. What should they do with that information during the Biden presidency? Sit on it until Maxwell's appeals ran out? No! Obviously not. If they had information that implicated Trump in criminal behavior, they should have opened up a criminal investigation on Trump, right? That would be legal and proper, would it not?

We had evidence that implicated Trump in criminal behavior. They opened up a criminal investigation on Trump. You said it was not legal and proper. In fact you said "The Biden administration and the Democrats went after Trump" because they opened investigations into his election interference cases, his illegal business practices, and his classified documents kept in the bathroom practices.

Remember?